Technical Analysis Doesn't Work

[rcanfiel]

Quote from QQQShort:

I agree if you are saying a person cannot use only a hammer to build a house and that there is a minimum level of skill needed to properly use a hammer. If instead you mean a hammer cannot be used to build a house, that is a conclusion I do not understand.

Neither seems to relate to the post.

 

[QQQShort]

Quote from rcanfiel:

Neither seems to relate to the post.

Is there a similar analogy that better describes your position?

 

[ljyoung]

Money management, portfolio management, interest, trade management, luck in leveraging a rising market, fees from running hedge funds/speaking fees/running an advisory, outright lying about the profitability

Would these considerations be singularly applicable to practitioners of TA?

lj

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from Maverick1:

Ok mr wikipedia wielding rcanfiel, let me ask you a question:

Would you walk up to Tiger Woods or Roger Federer and tell them that their track record proves nothing about their technique and hard work and that there are merely random/lucky statistical outliers among the very large population of golfers and tennis pros?

The question also is posed to Marketsurfer and anyone else taking his stance, btw

Golf and Tennis have not been constantly tested as having no market outperformance. TA has.

I think the term is, "comparing apples to oranges."

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from QQQShort:

Is there a similar analogy that better describes your position?

Yes; the original post. It is unnecessary to rephrase it.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from ljyoung:

Would these considerations be singularly applicable to practitioners of TA?

lj

The point is that there are a lot of other possible explanations for people who claim to outperform "as a TA practitioner." Many things.

If there is another comparable fallacy similar to the TA being discussed, then these considerations would be just as relevant.

People are in such a hurry to defend TA, that they seem to have little appetite to use things that would hold up under standard testing mechanisms.

Thus the constant appeal to belief systems. Or anger. Anything but solid, credible, testable proof that would hold up to intense scrutiny.

ProfLogic is the latest example. I issued a challenge to have a trading duel. He boldly accepted. I proposed terms. Then he disappeared.

 

[taowave]

RCan,
Is it safe to assume you have actually traded technically at one point in your career and failed miserably???

For all the hot air that escapes you,I am sure you aware that the only way to really know if a technique works(or not) is to step into the ring and "get it on"...

There is no shame in saying YOU could not trade profitably applying T.A..

 

[ljyoung]

The point is that if such things (Money management, portfolio management, interest, trade management, luck in leveraging a rising market, fees from running hedge funds/speaking fees/running an advisory, outright lying about the profitability) are equally relevant then they are a wash.

Whatever other methodology (fallacious or not) one might use to trade in the market, such things would be available to the "bottom line" in a manner no more or less than would be the case for a practitioner of TA.

This of course presumes that one does not use any sort of TA with respect to "such things" and this in fact may not be the case. For example an exit point (for a partial profit, a failed trade or a reversal protocol) may come about as a consequence of a particular "TA thing" as opposed to a predetermined exit based on some non-technical factor.

lj

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from taowave:

RCan,
Is it safe to assume you have actually traded technically at one point in your career and failed miserably???

Why do people feel the need to lead off by saying stupid things? You know nothing about my trading, so saying it for effect has none.

For all the hot air that escapes you, I am sure you aware that the only way to really know if a technique works(or not) is to step into the ring and "get it on"...

No. The only way to know if a technique "works" is to apply rigorous testing before throwing away your trading capital. Your way is the method of the 95%.

There is no shame in saying YOU could not trade profitably applying T.A..

When I want assistance from someone who is skilled with stupid sayings, I will look you up.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from ljyoung:

The point is that if such things (Money management, portfolio management, interest, trade management, luck in leveraging a rising market, fees from running hedge funds/speaking fees/running an advisory, outright lying about the profitability) are equally relevant then they are a wash.

I gave a list of potential things that could explain outperformance besides TA. It seems unnecessary to perform metrics, restate, complicate, debate or otherwise contemplate the semantics.

Whatever other methodology (fallacious or not) one might use to trade in the market, such things would be available to the "bottom line" in a manner no more or less than would be the case for a practitioner of TA.

This of course presumes that one does not use any sort of TA with respect to "such things" and this in fact may not be the case. For example an exit point (for a partial profit, a failed trade or a reversal protocol) may come about as a consequence of a particular "TA thing" as opposed to a predetermined exit based on some non-technical factor.

I still do not see the point of any of this. I think you need to reread the post, as I said. I am not trying to be unkind, but this looks like a tangent.